Background checks can help save lives

Jayme Klauser

Thursday

Nov 29, 2012 at 12:01 AMNov 29, 2012 at 7:20 PM

I am writing in praise of Tabitha Clark’s article regarding criminal background screening on the front page of the Nov. 12 edition of The Daily News. Tabitha did a terrific reporting piece conveying the importance of this necessary service to protect our workplaces and our children.

To the editor:

I am writing in praise of Tabitha Clark’s article regarding criminal background screening on the front page of the Nov. 12 edition of The Daily News.

Tabitha did a terrific reporting piece conveying the importance of this necessary service to protect our workplaces and our children.

Last week, an investigative reporter for one of the big three television news morning shows did a fault-finding report on the criminal background screening industry. He focused on several potential employees who lost the opportunity for employment due to negative information obtained from background screening companies. In my opinion, he did an injustice to background screening organizations and companies who use them. He only highlighted several instances where erroneous information was received by an employer, resulting in the applicant losing the opportunity for work with them.

The examples given were where potential employees’ names were confused with those who had criminal records and no other qualifiers were used to eliminate the applicant as the owner of those negative reports.

When a background check is performed correctly, the individual is required to complete forms with their full name and former names; all addresses; cities, counties and states where they have resided; Social Security number; and date of birth. The potential employee is required to authorize his or her information before the background check can begin and include any and all previous criminal background information.

The potential employee should be made aware of any differences found in his background information. If he or she disputes this as incorrect, then it falls on the background screening company to find the inaccuracies and work with the potential employee to obtain the correct information. A potential employee is given full disclosure as required by state and federal law.

During my employment and as manager of a small human resource company, we have performed and authorized background screenings for years. In several instances we have received potentially negative information on an applicant for employment that would adversely affect their chances of gaining employment. At those times, we conducted additional inquiries of both the employee and the reporting agency. We have called courthouses where the charges originated to prove or disprove the information on a report. Our clients realize the importance of checking the people that work for them and we do all we can to protect the integrity of their workplace while respecting an individual applicant from unfair decisions based on incorrect information.

One specific example of the failure to do background checks in a Florida business resulted in a homeowner’s murder. She was tragically killed by workers who had cleaned her air ducts six months earlier. Both employees had criminal backgrounds and one was a twice convicted sexual offender on parole; however the company that hired them did not conduct any criminal record check prior to hiring them. This tragedy inspired the victim’s sister to start the Sue Weaver CAUSE — Consumer Awareness of Unsafe Service Employment — to educate people on the necessity of criminal background checks on workers entering homes. The website is www.sueweavercause.org.

As a member of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners, we comply with Federal Trade Commission requirements and promote screening, as mentioned in Clark’s article. We cannot thank Tabitha Clark enough for emphasizing the importance of background screening.

We encourage all businesses to know who they are hiring and protect their workplace and the safety of their employees and customers, especially our children as noted in Clark’s article.